Baptist Health South Florida Scholarly Commons @ Baptist Health South Florida All Publications 6-26-2015 An Assessment of Current Palliative Care Beliefs and Knowledge: The Primary Palliative Care Providers' Perspective Yvonne Patten Baptist Hospital of Miami, yvonnep@baptisthealth.net Maria M. Ojeda Baptist Health South Florida, mariaoj@baptisthealth.net Carolyn Lindgren Doctors Hospital, CarolynL@baptisthealth.net Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.baptisthealth.net/se-all-publications Part of the Nursing Commons, and the Palliative Care Commons Citation Patten, Yvonne; Ojeda, Maria M.; and Lindgren, Carolyn, "An Assessment of Current Palliative Care Beliefs and Knowledge: The Primary Palliative Care Providers' Perspective" (2015). All Publications. 676. https://scholarlycommons.baptisthealth.net/se-all-publications/676 This Conference Poster -- Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ Baptist Health South Florida. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons @ Baptist Health South Florida. For more information, please contact Carrief@baptisthealth.net.
An Assessment of Current Palliative Care Beliefs and Knowledge: The Primary Palliative Care Provider`s Perspective Yvonne Patten, MSN RN CHPN Maria M. Ojeda, ARNP-C, MSN, MPH, DNP PhD-c, Carolyn Lindgren, PhD, RN 1
Objectives Summarize the literature review regarding healthcare providers (HCP) knowledge of primary palliative care (PPC). Describe the methods used to evaluate BHSF HCP knowledge and competency in the delivery of PPC. Discuss findings that support the need for: (1) ongoing palliative care education; (2) further exploration of HCP perceived competency in PPC. 2
Purpose BHSF 2014 Employee Engagement The purpose of this study was twofold: (a) Evaluate the level of perceived competence and palliative care knowledge amongst Baptist Health South Florida (BHSF) healthcare providers (b) Determine the difference in knowledge between healthcare providers who participated in the BHSF Intercultural Palliative Care/End-of-Life Training and those who did not participate. 3
BHSF 2014 Employee Engagement 4
Intercultural Palliative Care End-of-Life Program Improve confidence for dealing with palliative care EOL patients Gain fundamental cultural communication competence Identify, assess and resolve challenging patient care issues Utilize evidence-based tools and process to address patient and families needs 5
Research Questions BHSF 2014 Employee Engagement 1. Do HCP who participated in the BHSF palliative care training have significantly higher levels of perceived competency regarding palliative care compared to those who did not take the training? 2. Do HCP who participated in the BHSF palliative care training have significantly higher levels of knowledge regarding palliative care compared to those who did not take the training? 3. Is there a significant association between HCP perceived competence in providing PPC and knowledge of PPC? 6
Methods 7
Design The method of the study was a Pre-experimental static-group comparison design using two online surveys. The study was approved by the IRB. 8
Sampling Setting 7 hospital, not-for-profit healthcare system Target study participants A non-randomized sample of BHSF healthcare professionals IRB approved maximum sample size = 5000 Total participants - 388 with usable data 9
End-of-Life Professional Caregiver Survey (EPCS) Perceived Competence Assessment 28-item questionnaire using a 5 Point Likert Scale (1= Strongly Agree and 5= Strongly Disagree) EPCS assesses perception of 3-factors: Patient & Family Centered Communication Cultural & Ethical Values Effective care delivery. Preliminary testing of the EPCS has demonstrated internal consistency reliability (Cronbach s alpha = 0.50 0.75) and good discriminant validity. Permission was obtained from the author to use the instrument (Lazenberry, Ercolano, Schulman-Green & McCorkle, 2012). 10
PI Developed Palliative Care BHSF 2014 Employee Survey Engagement [PCS] Knowledge assessment Questions structured based on National Consensus Project (NCP) 8 domains that guide quality improvement efforts in Palliative Care 20-item self-reported questionnaire using a multiple choice format (True/False/I don t know) Questions reviewed for face validity by four palliative care experts. 11
Procedures Recruitment of Participants Email #1 Announcement #2 Distributed 1-week after announcement #3 Reminder - sent 1-week after distribution 12
Demographics Study Groups by Training Status (N=388) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 129 Yes 259 No <50% of time spent in Direct Patient Care 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 55% 45% More than 50% Less than 50% 13
Study Participants Palliative Referrals in 1-year 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 61% 17% 9% 4% 9% none 1-3 4-6 7-10 more than 10 14
Primary Role at BHSF 15
Years in Profession 50% 46% 40% 30% 20% 10% 4% 19% 19% 13% 0% less than 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years More than 15 years 16
Results & Interpretation 17
Differences between Training status groups on Demographic characteristics Question Chi-square, (df) n P-value Number of palliative care referrals last year X 2 =20.836, (4) 385 *P<.000 Spend at least 50% of time in direct care X 2 =.436, (1) 386 P=.509 Primary role X 2 =29.52, (8) 386 *P<.000 Number of Midlevel providers X 2 =.176, (1) 387 P=.675 Number of years in profession X 2 =6.659 (4) 383 P=.155 18
Reliability & Validity Internal consistency reliability Perceived competency (EPCS)=.955 Knowledge (PCS) =.775 Exploratory factor analysis used principal component analysis with Varimax rotation EPCS PCS 6 component structure Accounted for 65.8% of the variance in the data 6 component structure Accounted for 50.2% of the variance in the data 19
Differences in Scores by Demographic Characteristic Medians Number of palliative care referrals (df=4) Perceived competency, X 2 =29.083, n=383, *p<.000 Knowledge, X 2 =32.483, n=348, *p<.000 Primary role (df=8) Perceived competency, X2=31.009, n=384, *p<.000 Knowledge, X 2 =83.69, n=349, *p<.000 Number of years in profession Not significant Man-Whitney U Most days spend 50% or more of time in direct care Not significant Midlevel provider [ARNPs, PAs] (n=384) Perceived competency U=1582.5, z=-2.108, *p=.035 (n=349) Knowledge U=1050.00, z=-2.842, *p=.004 20
Average Scores: Perceived Competency & Knowledge Pooled sample: Perceived Competency = 59.88 (n=384) Knowledge= 12.53 (n=349) Split (by Training group) Average score by Group: Yes=Trained; No= Not trained Survey Yes No Perceived Competency 54.14 (n=128) 62.75 (n=256) Knowledge 13.61 (n=118) 11.98 (n=231) 21
Differences between Training groups on perceived competency and knowledge Perceived Competency Mann Whitney U= 21332, z=4.827, p=<.000 Knowledge Mann-Whitney U=10257, z=-3.797, p<.000 22
Discussion Unanticipated events Incomplete responses Implications Ongoing education Staff may not be as competent as they believe Future Research What were the underlying reasons for the negative association between perceived competency & knowledge? What predicted scores on perceived competency and knowledge scores? (Demographic vs. Training status). 23
Questions 24